TeamViewer Remote Management Reviews

In my previous company, I was a project manager, and whenever we needed some remote IT support to fix certain problems in our PCs, we preferred TeamViewer Remote Management.

IT professionals involved in the maintenance of IT software prefer TeamViewer Remote Management.

IT specialists experience the most valuable features of the solution since it is easy for them as it provides them with a wide variety of functionalities to help fix IT-related issues.

The main issue with the solution is the stability problem arising from network issues. I would like to see TeamViewer Remote Management work even under the worst network situation.

I have been using TeamViewer Remote Management for five years.

For a cloud user, the solution's stability depends on the network. In the Middle East, sometimes or all the time, the real issue is that the network is not stable. The stability issues are not related to the product.

TeamViewer Remote Management's scalability is very high. I previously worked in a very big organization where all of the organization's remote maintenance depended on TeamViewer Remote Management, proving that it is highly scalable.

In our company, we have around 500 users.

I am unsure if there are any plans in my organization to increase the use of the solution since it is a decision taken by the management. Some of the branches of our organization that operate abroad use the solution to improve or maintain their IT environments, making me believe it is expandable.

Though I have experience with TeamViewer Remote Management, I prefer AnyDesk for now.

The initial setup of TeamViewer Remote Management is very simple.

The solution's deployment phase had to be carried out for four years.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

For deployment, I had to connect to my previous network. After finishing some work, if I wanted to upload it to OneDrive or use some features of my network, I couldn't do so in some cases remotely. When I called an IT person for help, he told me to open TeamViewer Remote Management and send him the code that appears on the screen. After I sent the code I saw on the screen after opening TeamViewer Remote Management to the IT person, he started to control my PC from his side to help me fix the issue.

I recommend those planning to use the solution only when they have a good network. It would be pretty hard to operate if they have any weaknesses in their networks.

I rate the overall solution a seven to seven and a half out of ten.

TeamViewer Remote Management probably has one of the best setups in terms of screen sharing, which I experience when I have to support my parents back home. The solution comes with screen sharing by default.

I use the solution to help my parents with a few things related to computers, so it is a tool I use completely for personal needs. TeamViewer Remote Management allows me to access everything in the system that belongs to my parents, especially in cases where I need to check for a virus or something while installing and uninstalling applications. In general, the solution gives me exactly what I expect from it.

I am not too well convinced with the audio part of the solution. However, I am unsure if the solution's audio issues are on both sides. I am sure the audio doesn't function well in the solution, so I feel it lacks the ability to connect to audio. The audio part of the solution needs improvement.

One of the defects that I have noticed with TeamViewer Remote Management is that if I am on a certain version and the person to whom I am connected is not on the same version, then it does not connect at times until I update the solution. The solution should offer backward version compatibility to allow for a seamless connection. When someone looks for a quick solution to fix the issues in the product, it takes time to download the updated version and install it in your system. The solution's online version is a bit difficult to use as the one we used is the downloadable version of the product for Windows. I haven't used the solution's macOS version.

I have experience with TeamViewer Remote Management for five or six years. I use the solution for my personal use.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine and a half out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution over nine on a scale of one to ten.

Considering that the solution is mostly used for personal purposes, I think five or six people in my company use the solution.

There are no plans to increase the number of users of the solution.

I have never contacted the solution's technical support, but I feel they are pretty good.

Microsoft Teams has functions like screen sharing and controlling the screen.

The initial setup of TeamViewer Remote Management is very simple.

The initial setup of TeamViewer Remote Management takes too long.

During deployment, I can also enable something like unattended access, but that is something a person shouldn't usually use because that's probably not the best way. While on TeamViewer Remote Management, we request a password each time we need access, which I think is one of the easiest and cheapest ways to use.

The solution is deployed on-premises.

The solution's installation phase can be carried out in-house by myself.

There are no charges to be paid for the solution since I use it for personal use.

The solution can maintain itself, making it one of its major advantages. There is no requirement for a very highly skilled person to operate the solution.

I recommend the solution to others planning to use it. TeamViewer Remote Management is the first choice in my recommendation list, especially if screen sharing is needed.

I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten.

I work for a system integrator, dealing with multiple clients. TeamViewer allows us to remotely access their desktops to address configuration or device-related issues.

We also use it for hosting meetings and offering technical support, guiding clients through different configuration procedures.

The screen-sharing feature is good. The latency is considerably lower compared to platforms like Zoom.

I've noticed that certain applications tend to experience frequent lag during screen sharing, especially terminal-related ones.

Additionally, there are instances where visibility becomes blurred.

In future releases, there should be a deployment feature available. If I need to deploy it remotely, I have to manually guide the person through the setup, which can be problematic as not all customers are tech-savvy.

I have been using this solution for two years. 

We don't use it extensively in our day-to-day operations. It's mainly employed for resolving issues, usually in short phone calls of around 20 to 30 minutes.

It is a scalable solution. Within my team, we are 20 to 30 but for the broader organization I support, it's more extensive.

I have contacted customer service and support a couple of times, but it was not good.

The support personnel seem to change with each call – sometimes it's someone from India, other times from Canada, and so on. You end up having to explain your case anew each time you call.

The initial setup does take some time, which can be inconvenient. It generally requires around an hour for the setup to be completed.

I am capable of managing the setup myself. We have a team of around four or five individuals handling the solution. 

We've seen an ROI. 

In comparison to other products, like those from Google, it is more costly.

We use the standard edition licensing fees.

I have used other open source tools in the same space.

Overall, I would rate the solution a six out of ten.

I would suggest that they initially go through the technical installation process themselves. It's important to understand all aspects thoroughly before connecting with clients to explain the configuration complexities.

We use the product to connect to our agents’ PCs. Sometimes if the agents face any issues, our support team would connect to the agents’ PCs and try to resolve it. The product helps us understand the problem faced by the agents.

The product is very stable. We use it in places where the internet connectivity is not stable. The product is quite simple.

The solution is a little expensive. It could be made more cost-effective.

I have been using the solution for more than five years. I am using the latest version of the solution.

I rate the tool’s stability a ten out of ten.

The scalability of the tool is good enough. We don’t face any issues. We have multiple connections, but we do not face any issues. One support person can connect with two to three PCs simultaneously without any issues. We use the solution extensively in our organization.

We were using AnyDesk. It is lighter than TeamViewer. If someone does not have strong internet connectivity, then AnyDesk would be a better option. We chose TeamViewer because AnyDesk gets disconnected suddenly.

The initial setup is straightforward. We can download an EXE file and start using it.

We deployed the solution in-house. The deployment process was quite simple. We understood what needed to be done from TeamViewer’s website. We need only one desktop support person or an operations person to deploy the solution. We do not require technical people to deploy it.

We pay a yearly licensing fee. For the stability it provides, the solution is worth the cost. There are no additional costs associated with the solution.

If we need to connect to somebody's PC to provide support and stay connected for a very long time, TeamViewer is more stable than other tools. Overall, I rate the product a ten out of ten.

The remote access is most valuable.

It could be more secure.

We have been using this solution for 20 years.

It is a stable solution.

Scalability does not apply to this solution. The whole technical team uses TeamViewer Remote Management which comprises one manager, one assistant, and staff.

I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

The initial setup is quick and takes about two seconds.

I rate this solution a ten out of ten. It's a very small program that is used for minimal issues. It has been doing its job for 20 years without a problem.

We primarily use the solution for remote monitoring and helping clients. 

If you need to get direct access to a customer's machine, we can make a direct connection using this solution. We can connect developers and engineers at the site for easy remote troubleshooting. We have customer support as well and can connect to clients directly using this or AnyDesk.

I like that we can get a remote desktop view and even we can get even full control over remote machines for communication and troubleshooting. We can make calls or chat over the applications. These aspects are all quite helpful.

The stability seems to be pretty good so far.

It's very user-friendly. It's not complex to navigate.

The initial setup is simple.

I'm not sure if the security is ideal. They could work to improve it. I've heard that it does not meet the compliance for use in the financial industry within our region. Here, central banks advise all the financial services and banks to use the remote monitoring tool which meets their compliance parameters, and this product does not do that. It's not allowed to use in banking environments.

We've used the solution for four or five years. 

The stability is good. Aside from some compliance issues in certain sectors, we've never had issues. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

The solution doesn't really offer scalability, however, it isn't really designed to be. We mostly use it to get connect peer-to-peer or one-to-one. I haven't come across any use cases for scalability or any expansions.

We have 30 to 35 users on the solution currently, that use it in our business. We likely will not increase usage, as we only have 40 or so engineers, and everyone who needs access has it. 

The solution really is very straightforward. Therefore, there hasn't really been a need to reach out to technical support. Having never dealt with them, I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they would be. 

We didn't really use anything prior to this solution, however, we have used TeamMeet and AnyDesk and I also have used Microsoft Remote Desktop Services.

The initial setup is very simple, very straightforward. It took like three minutes to deploy. You just download and just go next, next, next.

We didn't need any assistance. We might help our clients set it up to gain access, however, it's not a difficult process. 

There may be a license you need to pay, however, if someone is asking to connect to your machine, as a person getting service, you do not need to purchase a license in order to have TeamViewer on your machine for remote assistance. 

I would recommend the solution. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

In the last 12 months we actually made a decision to go away from TeamViewer. Part of it has to do with the fact that TeamViewer is very expensive.

What we find as a small business owner is that TeamViewer seems to be one of the more expensive products there are for remote management.

The problem is the valuable features don't come with the free version, they come with the paid version. The valuable features are being able to boot a remote computer into safe mode, being able to reboot the computer and to reconnect again, file transfers is not the most important thing in the world, although some people think it is, but it's not.

We've been using TeamViewer Remote Management on and off for four to five years.

Almost every product is very, very stable now. I've left Splashtop running for seven or eight hours connected to a system. I've left TeamViewer running for seven or eight hours to a connection or two. I have a hard time working out on four computers at a time, but three is not impossible for me. So even if I've had three computers connected it has been fairly stable.

I don't think that's really a relevant question. Scalability. It's not a database, you're not running a database. You're running remote access. You're either RDPing or you're actually going into another computer, so how many computers can you go into? Some of the products are scalable, in that you can have an enterprise version where you can have 10 technicians accessing 100 computers.

LogMeIn or Citrix, or any of the other ones, or even Splashtop, has the same thing. I don't run the enterprise version on the one we have, but we have access to many computers. I have more than one technician, so we have more than one technician license, and we have more than 100 computers that are permanently accessed. And they allow you to access ad hoc, as many as you want. We only do that if a client has a problem. I say, "Okay, go to our website, go to this page, click on it and run that program" and that downloads the streamer for the client end, and they give me the numbers and then we can attach.

I've never had to use tech support for any product.

We've used TeamViewer and a whole bunch of other products. I've been in this business for a long time. We've seen some come and go in the remote access field. We used to use OS/2 for doing this, as a matter of fact. So that goes back a long way, we're talking about the nineties, so over 20 years.

We had been using two products. We used TeamViewer and we used Splashtop.

We use Splashtop now. I'm into four workstations right now. When I was talking with you earlier, I was in nine different stations, nine different systems on one network. But we have used a bunch of different products. When Windows 10 came out, we found that the product that we were using then wasn't as good and TeamViewer had become better. It was a pretty good product, but it always tended to be a Cadillac in pricing. And the pricing model they have now seems to be expensive to use from last time I checked. Small users don't want to pay the kind of money, or can't afford the kind of money, that they were charging.

As a matter of fact, one of my clients is a single user. He wants to access a single computer. He doesn't need 15 technicians or one technician or to be able to access a whole bunch. He wants a one-to-one solution. TeamViewer doesn't really offer that. They offer the free one, but every time they make a change on the free one, you have to update both ends.

Sometimes you don't have the opportunity of being on site to be able to update it. Now they have changed that so that you can update it remotely, but you have to be able to connect first to do that. And then you're in the stage of where you're always trying to remember what version is at what client. Or if it's a one-to-one what version is there.

When the pandemic hit last year, they took the time limit off. So they gave relief to a lot of people to be able to use it. But at some point they changed it again and they put the time limit back on and they charged for it. And then if you have one version, like if you have version 14, and the client has version 15, you can't access his computer. If the client is on 14 and the technician is on 15, he can't access the end user who's at home. 

So there's a disparity in versioning.

In terms of advice, it really depends what you're using it for. TeamViewer can be from about $20 a month to $200 or $500 a month depending on how many managed devices and how many unmanaged devices there are. TeamViewer has gone to a monthly subscription rate, so you have to get it monthly. Although I think Splashtops is the same way. There are some products out there that you can buy a license for and have permanent software. The problem with that is that you don't get updates. What I see when comparing one versus the other, is that TeamViewer for small users is more expensive than some of the other ones. It maybe has some better performance or better features, but it probably depends if you're on a good internet. I'm on a rural internet so I don't have the benefits of having one gigabit download and upload and speeds. Most of my clients have a minimum of 60 megabits per second synchronous connections or fiber connections.

Because most of my clients, 99.5% of my clients, are in major centers like Toronto, Montreal, Washington, New York, Ottawa, Dallas, they don't appear to have issues. The biggest issue is me. Every time there's an upgrade to the pipe, we jump on it. I'm not in an industry that can survive at five Meg or 10 Meg a second any longer, although I feel like I get that still with what I have.

It depends on the size. You have to decide how many end points you need to manage? How many technicians do you have to manage those end points? Are you managing from within a ticketing package? Do you need your ticketing package to integrate with your remote management packaging?

On a scale of one to ten, I would give TeamViewer Remote Management an eight.

We use TeamViewer Remote Management to troubleshoot any technical issues our team encounters remotely.

The product helps us efficiently fix technical issues and maintain system downtime. We can manage all the operations remotely.

There could be stable connectivity for the product’s current technology. The application gets disconnected sometimes. It needs to be flexible to utilize the high bandwidth.

The product’s stability could be better.

It is a scalable platform.

The initial setup process is simple. It takes two minutes to complete. The deployment involves downloading the software, following the essential steps, and installing it.

The product can be implemented in-house.

I rate TeamViewer Remote Management a six out of ten.